Language, Culture and Curriculum;

An Investigation of Students Cultural Orientations, Communication Styles and Strategies

Andrew Reimann, Utsunomiya University

        Considering recent trends focusing on English as a Global Language and the diversity of learners and contexts, attention in second language acquisition research has shifted to developing cultural awareness and competence as an essential component of second language learning and teaching. With the steady increase of international travel, global economy, communication technology and the prospect that most people will have frequent and sustained contact and experience with other cultures in the future, it is no longer adequate that language learners merely have a command or a level of competence in a language. What is required, in this brave new world, is a deeper understanding and a comprehensive arsenal of meta-skills which will assist learners with acquisition and navigation of the finer nuances and sub levels of communication and interaction. Apart from language, what other skills do learners require? What are common problems that all people have when engaging with a new culture or in a new environment? How can these be taught or acquired out of context? What aspect of native language and culture spillover into second language learning? Considering culture on both a national and individual level, how can any generalizations on appropriateness, content, curriculum, learning styles or strategies be made? What is the role of the teacher in facilitating awareness, navigating differences and harnessing/developing cultural diversity as a resource? In an attempt to answer these questions, this paper will explore learner differences in cultural orientation, learning and communication styles and strategies and overall attitudes, concerns and perceptions of language learning and usage. By analyzing various contexts and methodologies and individual differences, this study will attempt to determine what type of approach is best suited to the needs and environments of today’s EFL learners. In conclusion, some suggestions will be made as to how these results might be applied to the development of a cross culturally appropriate pedagogy geared towards raising multicultural or cultural awareness and overall communicative competence.

        The following reports on a battery of surveys used to gauge learner’s attitudes, motivations and concerns regarding language learning, their usage of communication styles and strategies as well as degree and type of cultural orientation. The surveys used were the main instruments in a pilot study designed to provide insight into the relevance, scope and feasibility of research regarding the development of a meta-cultural awareness curriculum.

Communicative Competence and Strategies

        The results from the two surveys provide a fairly clear indication of student’s communicative needs, abilities and strategies as well as their cultural orientations. The first survey administered to 56 University students, was aimed at gauging learner’s opinions regarding which aspects of communication they felt were most difficult, how they might navigate through unknown situations and develop skills which could help them in future encounters. The survey also included questions which required the subjects to reflect on their learning style, the relevance and efficacy of language learning, intercultural communication and general development of cultural awareness.

        Of the 56 subjects, 12 were male and 34 were female. More than 60 % had had some sort of extensive experience abroad ranging from six a week home stay to residency of several years and 34% had no experience abroad. Levels of English ability, consequently, also differed and many of the subjects had varying degrees of proficiency in other languages including Chinese, Korean, French, Spanish and Czech. Although, perhaps not representative of the typical Japanese University student, as a result of their diverse backgrounds and experiences, these subjects were in a unique position to provide insight into the usefulness of language education in general, the difficulties encountered, strategies applied and skills required for intercultural communication. The subject’s responses suggest that, regardless of language (Japanese, English or other), learners have difficulty communicating in situations in which they have the least amount of shared knowledge, experience or where there is a considerable power distance. Some of the most significant responses were as follows: Shopping, talking to friends and ordering at a restaurant were ranked as easiest communication situations whereas a job interview, an argument, talking to police, doctors or in front of a large group were ranked most difficult. This further suggests that communication difficulties are not solely the result of language deficiencies but also the result of anxieties caused by insufficient cultural/subcultural knowledge, experience and awareness. Reflection of communication skills and strategies also supports this and indicates a need for language teachers to develop cultural as well as communicative competence and introduce strategies which can be applied to diverse situations to assist in coping with anxiety, ambiguity and unfamiliarity. A majority of the students also felt they did not have good communication skills in English or Japanese but thought they knew what was required for successful communication, applied their Japanese communication strategies to English, wanted more autonomy in the classroom and wanted the teacher to teach them communication tricks and strategies.

Cultural Dimensions and Orientation

        The second survey, administered to 45 subjects, was aimed at further exploring and developing issues raised regarding learner’s communicative needs, as well as determining appropriate learning styles, communication styles and cultural awareness strategies. Much recent research on English as a Global Language, investigating the different cultures, contexts and uses of English has advocated a flexibility of teaching methods, particularly with regard to Western dominated centre methodologies which do not consider peripheral learning styles, cultures or communicative needs. Western maxims which are considered the pinnacle of modern language teaching innovation include such buzz words as communicative, group work, student centered or autonomy are deemed by some as biased and inappropriate to certain learners, cultures and contexts. The basis for these conclusions is usually cited as a discrepancy or overgeneralization of perceived communicative needs, learning and communication styles as well as a general lack of progress in achieved language proficiency and communicative competence. However it is not clear whether these findings are the product of actual needs based inquiry and genuine difficulties with methodologies or being influenced by general dissatisfaction with results and the Western dominated pedagogies.

        Much research in culture studies and theory has also popularized the notion that cultures can be divided, quantified and described in terms of shared beliefs, values and orientations (Refer to list of definitions below). Although there appears to be a strong basis for accepting these dimensions, it would be detrimental and counterproductive to have these distinctions serve as anything other than theoretical musings. Having such divisions influence language learning policy or determine appropriate methods, would weaken second language acquisition endeavors and create debilitating overgeneralizations and stereotypes. Such popular research has characterized Japanese as collectivist, high-context, high-uncertainty avoidance, high power distance, favoring masculine qualities and indirect communication styles leading to assumptions that communicative, student centered and autonomous language teaching/learning approaches are inappropriate. Canadians (North Americans) by contrast have been characterized as individualistic, low context, low uncertainty avoidance, low power distance and being otherwise neutral regarding masculine or feminine qualities. (Hofstede. 1980, Hall. 1976)

Some value dimensions by which Cultures and Subcultures can be described

•          High Context/Low Context: A High Context orientation tends to use shared knowledge, “common sense” and aspects of the environment to convey meaning in communication whereas low context orientation relies more on the spoken word and specific contents of the message for meaning.

•          Individualist/Collectivist: Collectivist orientation values the group over personal goals and aspirations whereas individualists loyalty to the group tends to be secondary to personal achievements.

•          Uncertainty Avoidance: The extent to which cultures and individuals are apprehensive about the unknown. Those with high uncertainty avoidance tend to make rigid plans, low uncertainty avoidance orientations are more at ease with ambiguity.

•          Power Distance: The extent to which power is distributed equally among members of a culture.

•          Masculinity/Femininity: The degree to which either male or female qualities or traits are valued.

•          Concept of time (polychronic/monochronic, cyclical, linear, event related, short-term/long-term): describes differences in orientations towards deadlines, task management, relation and importance of concepts of past present and future as well as the attitudes towards traditions, planning and stability.

•          Communication Style – Types of strategies, methods, behaviour and habits used to encode and decode messages, information and meaning. (kinesics, haptics, proxemics, paralanguage)- movement, body language, gestures, eye contact, social distance, humour, sarcasm, tone/volume of voice, turn taking, etiquette.

•          Universalism/Particularism: Particularist behaviour, action, choices are influenced by specific situations. Whereas universalist actions tend to be more rule governed.

•          View of Nature: (control, constraint, harmony) The extent to which people can control are restrained by or can live harmoniously within their environment.                                                          

        While knowledge of these orientations may facilitate transition, integration, awareness and communication and also reduce or eliminate prejudice, bias and culture shock, it is important to note however, that individuals can differ considerably within cultures and often have unique or atypical values, overgeneralization of which can lead to inaccurate, negative stereotyping. For descriptive purposes such distinguishing features are useful and interesting, applying them in any concrete format may neither be valid, accurate or representative of a good percentage of the population. The results from the surveys which used Hall & Hofstede’s criteria as benchmarks to measure Japanese student’s cultural orientations, indicated that although there is no strong cultural orientation trend among the group, nor any significant difference between males and females these dimensions may vary considerably among individual subjects. The results further illustrate the dangers of over generalization, in that no significant trends or patterns emerge from the data, to adequately be able to describe, categorize or otherwise hypothesize about learner’s preferences or inclinations. This puts the vastness of classroom diversity into a more global rather than local perspective and suggests that although classic behaviours, shared backgrounds, histories and values may shape and influence culture, these only comprise one dimension of the many facets, cultures and characteristics that contribute to learner identity. It is necessary to look beyond national traits and stereotypes and focus on individual and sub-cultural dimensions which are more significant.

Conclusion

        Compiling similar data from 30 individuals who had experienced living in several different cultures for extended periods of time, Van der Horst (1998) identified cumulative qualities which would be invaluable in negotiating and coping with differences and difficulties as presented in various aspects of intercultural exchange, integration, interaction and communication. He labeled these as meta-cultural knowledge and described them as follows; “the ability to model, understand, and operate flexibly in the world in any given culture,  the ability to learn how to learn, and the ability to create one’s own  appropriate context for living”. He goes on to outline levels of competence in these skills as; “mastering the art of crossing over from one culture to another, becoming senior, transcendent, or “meta” to culture, learning the art of how to avoid becoming entangled in any of the presuppositions and value judgments of any single culture, learning what to do when, where, and with whom to be effective, productive, happy, and appropriate,  sometimes regardless of, but always at the same time respecting the present cultural context.” (Van der Horst, B. 1998:4). Some of the skills which might be developed as meta-cultural strategies superceding, complimenting and encompassing other strategic frameworks and models as they are applied and related to language learning processes are as follows: tolerance for ambiguity, low goal/task orientation, open-mindedness, non-judgmentalness, empathy, communicativeness, flexibility, adaptability, curiosity, warmth in human relationships, motivation, self-reliance, strong sense of self, tolerance for difference, perceptiveness, ability to fail. Important features and strategies essential to any methodology seeking to develop the above skills, include the empowering of local teachers, opening up the domain of pedagogy to learners, democratizing the language classroom, allowing learners to negotiate or shift between cultures, having teachers and learners be more reflective and critically aware of strategies and processes, developing meta-pedagogical, critical, “becoming appropriate” and overall cultural awareness’s. By applying these ideals and strategy goals to a framework, outlining what teachers might be able to expect and accomplish, providing guidelines and suggested parameters, pooling general knowledge, experience and intuition gleaned from teacher-researchers’ case studies across the board, both from periphery and western paradigms, a comprehensive and effective meta-skills development process can be created which would provide learners with the full spectrum of tools, knowledge and skills they will require to become competent navigators and negotiators of language and culture.

        Tomic (1998) identifies the need for a “cultural re-thinking” in language teaching by considering Agars’ (1994) concept of  “Languaculture” which holds that language is only one aspect of communication and that intercultural awareness is at the heart of communicative competence. She goes on to describe how this might be developed into a critical pedagogy which can prepare learners cognitively and affectively for exploring other cultures. The applied aspects of this approach encompass Giroux’s (1993) “pedagogy of difference” which encourages tolerance, exploration of identity, challenge of common sense and an overall transforming of the classroom from a mere instructional site to a rich pool of diversity, discovery and heightened awareness. This perception of difference as a resource rather than as an obstacle, is fundamental to the development of meta-cultural strategies and skills. The role of the teacher in such a pedagogy, would be as a guide and mentor, exploring, discovering and learning alongside the students. Rather than teaching about differences and how to cope and act appropriately, conflict, bias, inequality, communication breakdown and culture shock, should be experienced and recreated through critical incidents, role plays, simulations and other activities which will allow learners first hand, to use and develop the skills, tools and awareness which will enable them to be “shape shifters” and “post modern survivors” (Lifton, in Pederson, 1996). It is essential for present language education pedagogy to adequately prepare learners for the world they will encounter by providing more than just language tools. Considering individual needs, differences, cultures, learning environments and paradigms, building on teachers knowledge and experience and compiling and analyzing strategies which are common across cultures, it should be possible to create a universal pedagogy and framework which integrates a diversity of skills, develops meta-cultural awareness and ultimately produces individuals, societies and a world which is truly, communicatively competent.

References

Agar, M. (1994) Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New

    York: William Marrow & Co Inc.

Aoki, N & Smith, R. C. (1999) Learner autonomy in cultural context: The case of Japan.

    In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds). Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining

    the field and effective change. Peter Lang: Frankfurt.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002) Globalization, methods and practice in periphery classrooms.

    In D. Block, & D. Cameron (Eds). Globalization and language teaching. Routledge:

    London.

Giroux, H. A. (1993) Literacy and the Politics of Difference, in C. Lankshear and P.

    MacLaren (eds.) Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis and the Postmodern, Albany, New

    York: State University of New York Press.

Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related

    Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Merryfield, M. M. (1993) Reflective practice in global education: Strategies for teacher

    educators. Theory into Practice. 32(1), 27-32.

Norton, B. (2001) Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom.

    In Breen, M. P. (ed) Learner contributions to language learning. Harlow: Longman,

    pp. 159-171.

Pederson, P. B. (1996) Recent Trends and Developments in Cross-Cultural Theories, 

    Paper given at Changing Cultures: Developments in Cross-Cultural Theory and

    Practice, Conference held by Council for international Education (UKCOSA),

    University of London, 30 January 1996.

Preisler, B. Functions and forms of English in a European EFL country, in Bex, T. &

    Watts, R.J. (1999): Standard English: The widening debate. London: Routledge, pp.

    239-267.

Sargent, T. (2004) Advocacy oriented global education in TLT special issues. JALT

    Language Teacher. Vol. 28, No. 2. February 2004. (pp. 9-13).

Stapleton, P. (2000) Culture’s Role in TEFL: An Attitude Survey in Japan, Language,

    Culture and Curriculum, Vol. 13, No. 3.

Tomic, A. (2000) A critical pedagogy for teaching intercultural communication to

    language learners, in McBride, N. & Seago, K. (2000): Target culture-target

    language? (London: CILT)

Van der Horst, B. (1998) Inter-Cultural Communication. Conference of the German

    Association of NLP. Berlin, November, 1998.

Whorf, B.L. (1940/1956) Science and linguistics. In J.K. Carroll (ed.), Language, thought

    and reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. (pp. 207-19). Cambridge, MA:

    MIT Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998b) Skills, abilities and contexts of reality. Annual Review of

    Applied Linguistics, 18: 323-33.